Jim Anderson is a complete moron

[McC]

Originally Posted by D.Boon

What's the news on Lattimore?

http://boards.bengals.com/showthread.php?t=108658

Claims he'll be ready to start the season.

[McC]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

Essentially he's healing extremely quick and may make it back for 2013.

I'm still skeptical of him being drafted high though even with this news. Although, if McGahee was...

It's the rehab today. They practically wheel you from surgery to physical therapy.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by McC

It's the rehab today. They practically wheel you from surgery to physical therapy.

What position do you think he will get drafted in?

Our late 2nd Round pick might be an option.

I want to go sure thing with our 1st Round pick...or as sure as you can be.

[McC]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

What position do you think he will get drafted in?

Our late 2nd Round pick might be an option.

I want to go sure thing with our 1st Round pick...or as sure as you can be.

If he checks out physically, he's at least worth a second. He came back well from the first injury. He just seems special to me.

Hobson doesn't think the Bengals would take the chance. I promise you somebody will. I don't care how well an offense throws the ball, you still want a dynamic back, right?

[Dmac18]

Nice puff piece

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by McC

If he checks out physically, he's at least worth a second. He came back well from the first injury. He just seems special to me.

Hobson doesn't think the Bengals would take the chance. I promise you somebody will. I don't care how well an offense throws the ball, you still want a dynamic back, right?

It would be tough to take him with the 1st Round pick...but I think returning to pre-injury status is more the norm than the exception now.

[McC]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

What position do you think he will get drafted in?

Our late 2nd Round pick might be an option.

I want to go sure thing with our 1st Round pick...or as sure as you can be.

Can't see the Bengals having him at the top of the board in the first. Lacy, maybe.

Jay can talk all he wants, I believe Marvin wants one guy who can do it all and be explosive so you don't tell the whole world what you're doing when you sub. Actually, he probably wants two of those.

I see Peerman as a viable #2 if two aren't drafted/signed. Don't see Scott being around, Boom does his damage on ST's, Leonard goes.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by McC

Can't see the Bengals having him at the top of the board in the first. Lacy, maybe.

Jay can talk all he wants, I believe Marvin wants one guy who can do it all and be explosive so you don't tell the whole world what you're doing when you sub. Actually, he probably wants two of those.

I see Peerman as a viable #2 if two aren't drafted/signed. Don't see Scott being around, Boom does his damage on ST's, Leonard goes.

They definately want a #1 guy. We both know that the RBBC and QBBC talk is just what coaches do when they don't have a clear #1 guy.

[Bvengali]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

I am not sure, but I think he is saying that if you have a guy who is ONLY a speedy "outside the tackles" type back it limits what you can do when you have him in the game.

In other words it is good to have a second guy who can bring some extra things to the table (receiving ability, extra-speed, etc), but if the defense knows he can't run between the tackles at all then he will not be effective.

Yeah, not sure what the fuss is about -- makes perfect sense to me. All you have to do is imagine what would've happened if BJGE got hurt first game of the season and we had to ride Bernard Scott all season. I think in some respects, we were fortunate that BJGE was able to break off so many long runs -- I don't think anyone expected that.

So yeah, his cake comment is simply a reference to being lucky enough to find that perfect complement -- can handle the #1 role if need be, but also brings elements to the table that BJGE doesn't.

To him, the term "speed back" reeks of one-dimensional (even if the term isn't meant that way by the speaker).

[Bull Durham]

Originally Posted by WeezyBengal

Here is his reasoning for not wanting a "speed back":

“If you have a guy that can’t do some of the things that he can do, and you really need a guy that can carry it a lot in this division, then you can’t do what you do on offense,” Anderson said, via the team’s website. “You’d like the (other back) to emulate him in some way. Maybe the guy is like the other guy, but brings a few different things to the table. But sometimes you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...s-green-ellis/


I'm not even sure how to translate that quote. Why not get a speed back? I just dont understand. The league is evolving and you are being left in the dust. Who cares if we play in the AFC North. Get a pass catching guy who can be a play maker. Im tired of the off tackle runs and lame run offense.

You should read the entire conversation and not just some excerpt from some lame website. What he said makes perfect sense. He doesn't like the term "speed back." You have to be able to do more. You can't have some fast situational guy who can't run between the tackles or do some of the things your other RB does because then the defense knows exactly what you're doing based on who is in the game. You need versatile players. He wants someone who can do some of the things that BJGE can do plus add some extra dimensions or special attributes. You don't want a bunch of one-dimensional situational players.

Some people act like you have to have one short yardage guy, one fast guy, etc. Same wih WR. People think you have to have one guy who is a deep threat, one possession guy, one slot receiver. That's stupid. You want receivers who are threats to do all those things. Same with RBs.

I think morons who play fantasy football or madden forget how real football is played.

[austrianpine]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

I am not sure, but I think he is saying that if you have a guy who is ONLY a speedy "outside the tackles" type back it limits what you can do when you have him in the game.

In other words it is good to have a second guy who can bring some extra things to the table (receiving ability, extra-speed, etc), but if the defense knows he can't run between the tackles at all then he will not be effective.

...and that's what Jim Anderson was trying to say. No reason to call him a moron via this thread.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by austrianpine

...and that's what Jim Anderson was trying to say. No reason to call him a moron via this thread.

It's very hard to get outside the tackles in the NFL.

I agree though that a speed back is the wrong terminology.

We need a power back with speed...like a Corey Dillon. Dillon could run over you and take it 80 yards but he was also pretty fast.

[austrianpine]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

It's very hard to get outside the tackles in the NFL.

I agree though that a speed back is the wrong terminology.

We need a power back with speed...like a Corey Dillon. Dillon could run over you and take it 80 yards but he was also pretty fast.

Agree. A Dillon type of RB is just hard to find nowadays, it seems.

[Stewee28]

This has EDDIE LACY written all over. Please make it happen Jimmy Anderson, even though its not really your call!!

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by WeezyBengal

Here is his reasoning for not wanting a "speed back":

“If you have a guy that can’t do some of the things that he can do, and you really need a guy that can carry it a lot in this division, then you can’t do what you do on offense,” Anderson said, via the team’s website. “You’d like the (other back) to emulate him in some way. Maybe the guy is like the other guy, but brings a few different things to the table. But sometimes you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...s-green-ellis/


I'm not even sure how to translate that quote. Why not get a speed back? I just dont understand. The league is evolving and you are being left in the dust. Who cares if we play in the AFC North. Get a pass catching guy who can be a play maker. Im tired of the off tackle runs and lame run offense.

This guy is a coach on an NFL team?

All I can tell from that is that Jim Anderson does not like speed backs.

Which makes sense because I can't remember the last time we had one. (Bieniemy?)

And no, Scott is not truly a speed back.

So what happens if Jay DOES like speed backs? Does our RB coach trump our OC?

[henrizzle]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Anything you hear from the teams from now until after the draft is smoke.

And most of what they say during the season is smoke, too.

Yep. Don't listen to anything coaches say about the draft. All smoke screens.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by henrizzle

Yep. Don't listen to anything coaches say about the draft. All smoke screens.

Some of it is: Marvin liking Courtney Upshaw.

Some of it isn't: Jay drooling all over Andy.

It's definitely hard to sort out the truth at this time of year. I'm inclined to believe Anderson though, because we've always had bigger backs during his tenure (Dillon, Rudi, Perry, Benson, BJGE) and rarely have had a pure speed back.

Edit: In reply to Stewy, if the coaches were lying every single time they opened their mouths, lying wouldn't be very effective, would it? You could just take what they're saying and reverse it to get the truth.

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Anything you hear from the teams from now until after the draft is smoke.

And most of what they say during the season is smoke, too.

Very true, but you're wasting your breath. Multitudes of fans are going to react to what's said over the next three months as truth regardless of the fact that everyones lying.

[joshb1983]

my buddys a chef in georgetown, south Carolina...marcus lattimore come there alot to eat, he told me that lattimores walking good and getting all his movement back, he still has a small limp when he walks though..he says hes almost fully recovered and should be ready by the start of this season..hes training and rehabing very hard..he put up some pics with him about 2 wks ago and he looks good and healthy and hasnt lost size or anything..i think he would be awesome in stripes and i hope we can get him somehow in the draft..there projecting him in 3rd-4th round right now

[GreenDragon]

Originally Posted by WeezyBengal

Here is his reasoning for not wanting a "speed back":

“If you have a guy that can’t do some of the things that he can do, and you really need a guy that can carry it a lot in this division, then you can’t do what you do on offense,” Anderson said, via the team’s website. “You’d like the (other back) to emulate him in some way. Maybe the guy is like the other guy, but brings a few different things to the table. But sometimes you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...s-green-ellis/


I'm not even sure how to translate that quote. Why not get a speed back? I just dont understand. The league is evolving and you are being left in the dust. Who cares if we play in the AFC North. Get a pass catching guy who can be a play maker. Im tired of the off tackle runs and lame run offense.

the draft is less than 100 days away. 3 words SMOKE AND MIRRORS.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by WeezyBengal

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Whats the point in having your cake if you can't eat it ????.........( this is one of those old sayings that sounds good but makes no sense. You can't have your cake and eat it to...makes no sense.....Of course there is the equally stupid song, You can't have your Kate and Edith to ).

That said......I don't see us keeping all three of Green Ellis, Scott and Leonard......Scott and Leonard are up for free agency and I sure wouldn't pay them and their agents the moon and the stars. If I was owner, my first goal would be to keep all 22 starters. Now Maualuga may be the exception if him and his agent want to much because I think we can do better. We may not be able to keep Smith and that would force us to get another top right tackle as a starter. ........Now once I would have my 22 starters and punter and kicker, 24......It could be the money isn't there for big money to Scott or Leonard and maybe we can do better than them anyway.

Scott is never healthy, which only tells me he can't take the NFL hits...a RB that is always injured isn't worth having.

Leonard I like for his fighting for 1st downs on 3rd downs.....but I wouldn't pay him big money.....

I would differ from the coach because there is something to be said for having a RB that can return kicks if needed like a Stanford Jennings whos kick return TD put us ahead in the Super Bowl late in the game. I would kind of expect a 3rd string RB to be very good on special teams and having good speed would definatly be a plus.

So I don't agree with this one size fits all, Ford factory assembly plant of having all RBs the same type....I don't think you need the other 2 RBs to be just like Green Ellis....and I don't know why you would want the other 2 RBs to be like Green Ellis....Green Ellis at New England was their short yardage RB, but you need to have some speed backs also......

I will point out that one year we started with KiJana Carter as the #1 RB and some other guy as the # 2 RB.....and we were awful until the coaches broke down and played the rookie # 3 RB at mid season, Corey Dillon. .....I see no reason not to try to add a good RB in the draft in the first 3 rounds...and lets say it is round 3.....I think we can get a guy better than Scott or Leonard, and I sure wouldn't hold it against a RB if he has speed. Speed is what you need. Those running lanes in the NFL close up very fast.

Now if Leonard and his agent aren't asking for big money, I would love to have him back.....I have to think Scott up for free agency just hasn't done much here to warrent a big pay increase. I think we can do better in the draft, and since Scott is always injured, like the song says, you can't lose what you ain't never had.

[Bull Durham]

Originally Posted by kevin

Whats the point in having your cake if you can't eat it ????.........( this is one of those old sayings that sounds good but makes no sense. You can't have your cake and eat it to...makes no sense.....Of course there is the equally stupid song, You can't have your Kate and Edith to ).

Makes perfect sense. If you EAT your cake, you no longer HAVE your cake. It's not there any more.

[OchoCincos]

Originally Posted by WeezyBengal

Here is his reasoning for not wanting a "speed back":

“If you have a guy that can’t do some of the things that he can do, and you really need a guy that can carry it a lot in this division, then you can’t do what you do on offense,” Anderson said, via the team’s website. “You’d like the (other back) to emulate him in some way. Maybe the guy is like the other guy, but brings a few different things to the table. But sometimes you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...s-green-ellis/


I'm not even sure how to translate that quote. Why not get a speed back? I just dont understand. The league is evolving and you are being left in the dust. Who cares if we play in the AFC North. Get a pass catching guy who can be a play maker. Im tired of the off tackle runs and lame run offense.

My attempt at a translation would be that Anderson not only wants a speed back that can complement BJGE well, but could also carry more of a load if BJGE were to go down for any reason.

There are a bunch of good matches in the upcoming draft, but the player that I think both complements BJGE well and also could handle more of the load is Giovani Bernard. Also guys like Lacy, Randle, Franklin, and Michael among others, but Bernard would be an ideal candidate for what Anderson looks to be searching for.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Bull Durham

Makes perfect sense. If you EAT your cake, you no longer HAVE your cake. It's not there any more.

and then it goes stale, grows mold, and you have to throw it out...unless you want to continue to have your stale moldy cake.....If you can't eat the cake, it serves no purpose to ever have it. ....I think even frugal Mike Brown would have to agree that if you can't eat the cake, then don't waste money buying it.

[fortyyearfan]

Originally Posted by kevin

Whats the point in having your cake if you can't eat it ????.........( this is one of those old sayings that sounds good but makes no sense. You can't have your cake and eat it to...makes no sense.....Of course there is the equally stupid song, You can't have your Kate and Edith to ).

That said......I don't see us keeping all three of Green Ellis, Scott and Leonard......Scott and Leonard are up for free agency and I sure wouldn't pay them and their agents the moon and the stars. If I was owner, my first goal would be to keep all 22 starters. Now Maualuga may be the exception if him and his agent want to much because I think we can do better. We may not be able to keep Smith and that would force us to get another top right tackle as a starter. ........Now once I would have my 22 starters and punter and kicker, 24......It could be the money isn't there for big money to Scott or Leonard and maybe we can do better than them anyway.

Scott is never healthy, which only tells me he can't take the NFL hits...a RB that is always injured isn't worth having.

Leonard I like for his fighting for 1st downs on 3rd downs.....but I wouldn't pay him big money.....

I would differ from the coach because there is something to be said for having a RB that can return kicks if needed like a Stanford Jennings whos kick return TD put us ahead in the Super Bowl late in the game. I would kind of expect a 3rd string RB to be very good on special teams and having good speed would definatly be a plus.

So I don't agree with this one size fits all, Ford factory assembly plant of having all RBs the same type....I don't think you need the other 2 RBs to be just like Green Ellis....and I don't know why you would want the other 2 RBs to be like Green Ellis....Green Ellis at New England was their short yardage RB, but you need to have some speed backs also......

I will point out that one year we started with KiJana Carter as the #1 RB and some other guy as the # 2 RB.....and we were awful until the coaches broke down and played the rookie # 3 RB at mid season, Corey Dillon. .....I see no reason not to try to add a good RB in the draft in the first 3 rounds...and lets say it is round 3.....I think we can get a guy better than Scott or Leonard, and I sure wouldn't hold it against a RB if he has speed. Speed is what you need. Those running lanes in the NFL close up very fast.

Now if Leonard and his agent aren't asking for big money, I would love to have him back.....I have to think Scott up for free agency just hasn't done much here to warrent a big pay increase. I think we can do better in the draft, and since Scott is always injured, like the song says, you can't lose what you ain't never had.

Currently, we have THE LAWFIRM,PEERMAN, LEONARD, SCOTT AND BOOM HERRON. Heres is what i would do!! Keep the lawfirm,and peerman.Cut leonard and scott.Give Boom Herron a training camp to get where Coach Anderson thinks he should be or not be.Draft running back Mike Gillisbee and start him along with the lawfrim.Here is what someone who seems to know about motion,balance and all that said about this guy.He has great vision,cutting power, patience,acceleration to the hole,has a second gear passing,low balance low center,balanced muscle ratio between his hams and quads, runs with his glutes and hams instead of his quads.Has an edge and fearlessness when blocking.,Unselfish player that blocks willingly.A dynamic back that is stout enough to hold up in pass-pro.Would be a good pick in second or third round.Has a clean slate, never been in trouble.Is a team-guy.